With all of this positive interaction between Kahneman and Tversky, there was also a major challenge that could have driven them apart. This challenge centered on the matter of Status difference—the factor we identified in the interaction of Abraham Lincoln with his rivals. While Lincoln was able to “flatten” the differences in status among his cabinet members, the issue of status difference was not so easily resolved between Tversky and Kahneman—largely because other people imposed differences on the two of them. Michael Lewis (2017,pp. 294-295) comments on this struggle:
“Danny complained at length about how different the public perception of the collaboration as from its reality. ‘I am perceived as attending him, which is not the case,’ . . . ‘I clearly lose by the collaboration. . . . Amos spoke, at less length, about how the blame for their unequal status fell squarely on other people. ‘ . . . Danny[ declared ‘I am very much in his shadow in a way that is not representative of our interaction,’ he said ‘It induces a certain strain. There is envy! It’s just disturbing. I hate the feeling of envy . . ..’ “
Later, there was a reverse of this status difference. Kahneman accepted a position at Stanford University, while Tversky was serving as a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia (UBC). While UBC is a high-status institution, it does not reside at the top of the hierarchy where a university such as Stanford resides. Lewis (2017, p. 306) offers the following report: “One night as they talked, Amos [Tversky] blurted out that the difference he felt being at Stanford was the difference of being in a place where everyone was first-rate.” I suspect that this struggle regarding status often accompanies two highly successful collaborators: one is often given too much credit and the other does not get enough. This can shatter a collaboration—but not in the case of Kahneman and Tversky.
Boundaries
The key, in part, seems to be about boundaries. For Tversky and Kahneman, these boundaries were found in the requirement that they were working in person with one another. They always met behind closed doors in a room that allowed for sustained privacy. It is poignant to note that their collaborative relationship broke down when they were no longer working together in person. Lewis (2017, p. 312) reported that things changed when they were no longer together:
“It wasn’t that Amos had no interest in Danny’s thoughts. It was that they were no longer talking in the same room, with the door closed. The conversation that he and Danny were meant to be having together each was more of less having alone. Because of the new distance between them, each was far more aware where the ideas had come from.”
As I have noted, Eisler’s chalice and Gilligan’s ethic of care require that there is trust in a relationship—and this trust requires that the relationship is bounded in some way. It is in the containment of anxiety (associated with differences) that sustained, whole-hearted and whole-headed collections are sustained.
Bringing the Teachers Together
What does this relationship between Kahneman and Tversky mean with regard to the lessons being taught us by the Back family, Abraham Lincoln and Carol Gilligan? What they might have said to one another if brought together? I suspect that they would have much to say about similarities in addressing adversity, finding a safe place in which to interact, and committing to an ethic of care.
I think the relationship between Tversky and Kahneman exemplified a reliance on relationships despite status differences imposed from outside. This same challenge was found in the greater success experienced by Bach’s sons than by Papa Bach. The relationship between Kahneman and Tversky also exemplified the commitment to a higher cause that we see in the life and work of Abraham Lincoln, and in the work of Carol Gillagan and Lawrence Kohlberg.
